Compulsory water metering

Quite. Hardly high performing.

Private sector businesses that are like that fail. In the public sector, they continue to receive my funding without my choice to withdraw it..

So it should do, but in order to achieve it must meet its business obligations.

I do (1) every month to HMRC.

In any investment, there is a risk/return and a timescale. As a private investor, I can choose between investments of different parameters.

Of course. The difference is that in the private sector, the market corrects the weak or eliminates them. In the public sector, more of our money is thrown at the problem without necessarily correcting the problem.

I agree with you that the model is probably incorrect. A better approach would be for there to be a separation between origination and delivery as there is with other services.

Because it doesn't work.

Of course. They should be done for business reasons only. On that basis, there is no case for public ownership of utilities.

But solid as a rock

More Little Middle England Matt tripe. The most wasteful companies I have ever come across are large private companies. The drug companies come to mind - who sell their products to us via the NHS for the vast amount of their profits. These companies have a semi monopoly.

Assuming everybody had a meter and all the meters were read on the same day, it would be possible.

Doing something that is vital for life doesn't work, Matt says. How Little Middle England thinks. Sad isn't it.

All new houses must have meters, and where you extend a house, you have to have a meter.

You also need a meter if you want to use a garden sprinkler, or have a swimming pool.

Fine if it's what you want. Not very interesting if you want a higher return.

The pharmaceutical companies are among the tightest with expenditure in many areas that one comes across.

In terms of their making good profits, of course they should. This is how new developments are funded and there is a limited window to make money before patents expire.

Once generic versions of drugs become available, the NHS switches to those anyway.

OTOH, if people in NHS purchasing operations are unable to negotiate good prices because they are useless at their jobs, then that is another matter, and they should be fired. It would be interesting to know if their remuneration is performance based as it would be in the privae sector.

Exactly. But then, if you're investing in a monopoly, the risk is a touch lower and the dividends more certain - so only the pathologically greedy would expect high dividends.

Which is why any surplus should go to the exchequer where it can help keep taxes down or services up.

If you want a high return then take the risks and take the chance of no return. Stop expecting to be a leech on the rest of us with a high return (from taxation) from a guaranteed safe investment.

Matt, stop making things up. I have done work for them. More money than brains.

Yes, I was considering telling them. But it's not really my problem. The water company installed the meter which is now faulty. Any sensible computer system should flag zero or negative readings for attention. The water bills are paid automatically from my bank account, so I simply glance at the bill and file it and do nothing else. I am prepared to pay an amount based on my usage for the last year. I'm just interested to see how long it will take for them to notice.

If a utilities company has made a mistake, they tend to be difficult to deal with, so it's best to avoid that. The meter reader for my power company made a very large mistake that implied my usage had doubled. Their computer system didn't flag that either. When I phoned them, they wanted me to supply a password for ID (when they had never given me one) then they would not accept my reading and sent someone around to re-read the meter.

Matt, its all the same boring place. Matt, what physica are you on about. Those in your school book and BIg Bumper How It Works books under your pillow? Matt? You are a one.

From where on earth do you get that idea?

Obviously if I want a high return I can take a higher risk with an investment and the potential downside as well as upside. That's a choice I can make.

If I want a safe investment with rather leaa return I can go for corporate bonds in blue chip companies.

For an even safer one, I could go for government bonds.

All three of those are my choice. I can select between them or not.

Investing in an industry via taxation is an extremely poor way for the industry to be incented to perform and indeed the overhead (as a result of vast armies of unnecessary civil servants) is that the tax investment becomes highly depleted before it reaches the point of use.

Added to this, I don't get a choice with taxation. As a private invester and user of something, I can pay for what I use and invest for a return if I choose.

In terms of taxation, I am absolutely certain that I contribute considerably more than the value I receive in return, so in terms of being a leech, I would suggest that the boot is on the other foot.

They must have to have employed you doing anything......

Matt, it is very true.

Then they would be disappointed.

No it shouldn't. A far better solution is that it doesn't pass through government hands in the first place.

I had one of those letters telling me I had to have a water meter with an appointment for its fitting. I told them to stick their meter where the sun don't shine and I never heard another peep.

(OK, I wasn't that coarse really. I politely delined their kind offer)

I very much doubt that English is your first language, let alone your second.

Dave

At times you talk bloody claptrap!

The drug companies have got them over a barrel and they don't half know it.